"Behind the growing tension with Netanyahu is Biden’s feeling that Israel hasn’t been listening to U.S. warnings and advice, and that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has been a one-way street," Ignatius wrote. "The administration feels it supports Israeli interests, at considerable political cost at home and abroad, while Netanyahu isn’t responsive to American requests."
This followed calls from Congressional Democrats very close to Biden - like Delaware Senator Chris Coons - to consider restricting U.S. military aid to Israel.
"More of President Joe
Biden’s top Senate allies are ... joining calls to cut military aid if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to change course,"
AP reported. "What had been dissent from independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and a small group of progressive Democrats has swelled in response to the soaring death toll in Gaza. Now even
Biden’s closest confidant in Congress, Chris Coons, says it is time to get tougher with Netanyahu’s government on how it conducts the war."
"Coons, a senator from Biden’s home state of Delaware, called for the U.S. to cut military aid to Israel if Netanyahu goes ahead with a threatened offensive on the southern city of Rafah without significant provisions to protect the more than 1 million civilians sheltering there," AP said. "Continuing U.S. military support for Israel at current levels 'becomes untenable when Israel demonstrates they are unwilling to listen to us,' Coons told cable networks."
Here is a proposal which "is not a radical idea," as Uncle Bernie would say. If Congressional Democrats don't think U.S. weapons should be used to attack Rafah, they should use their Constitutional power as Members of Congress to move to prohibit it.
Congress never authorized U.S. participation in Netanyahu’s endless war in Gaza. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a single Member of the House or Senate could force a vote on prohibiting it. Or on prohibiting any part thereof that they have the votes to prohibit.
The latter is an under-appreciated fact about the vote-forcing provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. They're not one-zero. If we don't have enough support for (what some would consider) a "good vote" on prohibiting the whole war, we can try to prohibit a part of the war where we have more agreement in opposition. In the present case, this would separate the question of what publicly stated Administration policy towards the Netanyahu government to protect civilian lives should be from the question of whether the Administration is applying enough pressure on the Netanyahu government to bring about the publicly stated Administration policy to protect civilian lives. If the Administration isn't applying enough pressure on the Netanyahu government to bring about publicly stated Administration policy to protect civilian lives, then obviously it doesn't matter that much what the publicly stated Administration policy to protect civilian lives is.
There is a recent precedent that was
unanimously supported by Congressional Democrats (including then-Senator Kamala Harris): the Sanders-Lee-Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution that
passed the Senate in December 2018 and
passed the House in April 2019. It did not prohibit the whole war. It only prohibited the Pentagon mid-air refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. That's the prohibition that peace advocates had the votes in the Senate at the time to pass. Peace advocates believed that a narrower prohibition that passed the Senate would have much more impact than a broader prohibition that couldn't pass. And indeed, according to Congressional lobbyists for Oxfam who were closely following international diplomacy led by Sweden, passage of the Yemen War Powers Resolution was a key catalyst for the Saudi-Houthi ceasefire agreement (during the Trump Administration!) that protected the crucial Yemeni port of Hodeida and prevented deeper famine, and which ceasefire agreement the
Biden Administration later succeeded in extending to all of Yemen.
There are House Democrats raising lots of campaign cash off of calls for "ceasefire." I welcome their calls for "ceasefire" - now the official position of the
Biden Administration. But any Tom, Dick, and Harris can call for "ceasefire." I can call for "ceasefire," you can call for "ceasefire,"
Vice President Harris can call for "ceasefire." Only a Member of Congress can introduce a War Powers Resolution. How come they don't?